Invaders! artist provides context to controversial piece

I'm all in favor of freedom of speech, and he has the right to express himself however he wishes. Problem is, this particular piece of "art" is not intended to be a personal expression... it was intended to be a commercial stunt for the artist. It has as much depth and nuance as a Springer episode. It hasn't acheived public recognition due to its profound statement on anything... only its shock value.

What you "it's free speech!" parrots seem to forget is that rejecting his work is free speech as well. The protection of free speech doesn't mean you say or do whatever you want and there are no repercussions. In fact, the very concept insures that everybody else's free speech will be just as valued as yours.

So, in the spirit of free speech, let me state that this guy is an opportunistic hack who is using a national and global tragedy to propel his name undeservedly into the headlines.

I remember when an artist had painted a mural as part of an exhibition at my school, which basically had a mash of stuff all thrown in seemingly at random, ranging from decapitated deer heads to abstract shapes. I hated it. However, my art teacher thought the painting was brilliant, so she asked the artist what was the significance of the circles floating in mid-air. He then told the class, "well, I just really like circles."

My art teacher didn't like him or his art after that.

Well that's the point of a controversial piece of art.

that was fucking funny, horrible but funny.

OMG

so why is it cool to poke fun at the sept 11th attacks, but not make art out of it?

better build some big buildings to hide behind then!

or an actor playing a retarded character in a movie. I don't know much about art but to me it looks like just an uninspired heartstring puller that capitalizes on the new popularity behind video games and nerddom

But when his message/opinion/reaction was related to the WTC events, why should he be banned from using its image? Your analogy doesn't quite fit - his work would be like using Hitler in a debate about the Second World War, or having a villain kill a puppy in a movie about saving puppies.

The problem is him using someone else's creation to do so. If he created it out of needlepoint, there wouldn't have been as major a reaction (he'd probably not even get noticed).

The problem is Taito sees this as a black mark on the Space Invaders brand. Not only did this "artist" (term used loosely, I still don't see how t30 seconds in what amounts to MS Paint qualifies as art, Maddox has better works on his website than this) use a copyrighted property without permission of the creator, it was used in a manner that can be construed to cast a negative light on the property.

Furthermore, it cannot be argued to be a parody, criticism or social commentary as it doesn't comment on Space Invaders; It only uses it as a medium for a completely unrelated event.

The message itself isn't the problem, it is how it is presented. If our Cali-Frenchie "artist" actually programmed a game himself depicting the WTC, the discussion wouldn't have lived past the first day. The fact this individual lacks the competence to actually program anything is the only reason why we're still hearing about the issue. Anyone else would have been long forgotten.

Fame via incompetence.

you like anime, and are therefore disqualified from making any judgments on art.